Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3660173, member: 19165&quot;]I&#039;m absolutely not knocking your experience! I also fully understand that pre-1985, things were done quite a bit differently than they are today. I&#039;ve only been collecting seriously for 22 years, so I don&#039;t have quite the historical perspective that some of you have (although I have many more years than many members). And, I think one of the most valuable parts of a forum like this is learning from the experience of people who&#039;ve been involved for a long time.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>All that being said, things have definitely evolved, as you mention.</p><p><br /></p><p>Grading has evolved more than just about any other field of numismatics. In 1963, the ANA had not even begun to consider publishing their grading standards. The people involved in creating TPGs were kids. Shoot, even QDB was just a youngster then. Numismatics has evolved. We can&#039;t forget our history, but to succeed in the modern market we have to understand how modern grading practices influence TPG grades. I&#039;d like to think these were fairly static, but I think we can all agree that even these fluctuate. This, more than any other point, is where certain prominent members get twisted around the axle. </p><p><br /></p><p>The whole point of these threads is to compare CoinTalk&#039;s grading to the TPG&#039;s. I want to see how we grade differently, perhaps figure out why, and if possible align ourselves to the &quot;standards&quot;. Right or wrong, disagree or not, the TPG&#039;s are the ones who rule the hobby.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think you and I can both agree that if you try to collect today the same way that you did in 1963, you&#039;re going to be seriously frustrated.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in